Slashdot Mirror


Can We Abandon Confidentiality For Google Apps?

An anonymous reader writes "I provide IT services for medium-sized medical and law practices. Lately I have been getting a lot of feedback from doctors and lawyers who use gmail at home and believe that they can run a significant portion of their practice IT on Google Apps. From a support standpoint, I'd be happy to chuck mail/calendar service management into the bin and let them run with gmail, but for these businesses, there is significant legal liability associated with the confidentiality of their communications and records (e.g., HIPAA). For those with high-profile celebrity clients, simply telling them 'Google employees can read your stuff' will usually end the conversation right there. But for smaller practices, I often get a lot of push-back in the form of 'What's wrong with trusting Google?' and 'Google's not interested in our email/calendar.' Weighing what they see as a tiny legal risk against the promise of Free IT Stuff(TM) becomes increasingly lopsided given the clear functionality / usability / ubiquity that they experience when using Google at home. So my question to the Slashdot community is: Are they right? Is it time for me to remove the Tin Foil Hat on the subject of confidentiality and stop resisting the juggernaut that is Google? If not, what is the best way to clarify the confidentiality issues for these clients?"

9 of 480 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    If you use Google products or services, you will become the next goatse guy. Google is looking for a black goatse guy in particular.

  2. If you can e-mail info by AvitarX · · Score: 0, Troll

    I would think Google apps is fine.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  3. Re:yes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    yes but we're talking about a LEGAL bar here, not that skank you banged on the sticky floor behind the local dive.

  4. Re:The bottom line by Jurily · · Score: -1, Troll

    That's how MS got where they are after all

    MS got there with pure dumb luck, shady business tactics and buying out potential competitors.

    And yes, it's lazyness: he's a sysadmin, and he knows the security implications. He just chooses not to care.

  5. Re:yes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    typical ignorant geek. stick to your computer, son.
    http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1181207138704

  6. Re:yes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Woosh fucker!

  7. Re:Tricky HIPPA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    As a paramedic, you should know it is HIPAA not HIPPA.

    I didn't read the rest of your post as you lost all credibility in the first 8 words.

  8. Re:Ever read a EULA? by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

    YOu do ralize that since they own the OS(MS) they can have it do whatever they want, and not let you know.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. Re:yes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    pedobear - is that you?